New Delhi, May 20 (UNI) In a landmark judgment impacting judicial service aspirants across the country, the Supreme Court on Tuesday reinstated the requirement of a minimum three years of advocacy practice for candidates applying to entry-level judicial posts.

The ruling clarifies that this condition will apply prospectively to future recruitment processes and not affect any judicial recruitment exercises already initiated by High Courts before this date.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice AG Masih, and Justice K Vinod Chandran delivered the verdict in the All India Judges Association case. The court observed that the period of practice may be counted from the date of provisional enrollment with a bar council.

To validate the condition, a certificate issued by an advocate with at least ten years of standing, endorsed by the judicial officer of the relevant station, will suffice. For candidates practising before the Supreme Court or High Courts, the certificate must be endorsed by an officer designated by the court.

The bench also held that experience as a law clerk can be counted towards the three-year practice requirement.

Highlighting concerns raised over the years, the Supreme Court criticised the previous practice of allowing fresh law graduates to enter the judiciary without any prior experience at the Bar.

The Court stated, “For the last 20 years, during which fresh law graduates have been recruited directly as judicial officers without even a single day of practice, the experiment has not been successful. This has led to many problems.”

The judgment emphasized that judges, from day one, are required to make decisions involving life, liberty, property, and reputation.

The court noted that neither legal textbooks nor pre-service training can substitute the practical courtroom experience and real-time observation of how judges and lawyers operate.

“Candidates should be exposed to the functioning of courts and understand the intricacies of the judicial role. We agree with the views of most High Courts that a minimum period of legal practice is essential,” the bench observed.

Originally, most states required a minimum of three years of practice as a qualification for judicial service. However, in 2002, the Supreme Court relaxed this condition, permitting fresh law graduates to apply for Munsiff-Magistrate posts.

Over time, concerns were raised, and several High Courts supported reinstating the experience requirement.

The court had reserved its verdict on January 28, 2025, following arguments by various stakeholders. In the interim, the Court stayed the Gujarat High Court’s recruitment process that did not mandate the minimum experience condition.

During the hearing, amicus curiae, senior advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, pointed out the inefficacy of allowing fresh graduates with no practical exposure to adjudicate sensitive matters.

The bench also noted that while there were concerns about candidates merely signing vakalats for formality, a required period of effective practice remains essential for judicial readiness.

Most high courts across India, with the exception of Sikkim and Chhattisgarh, supported reinstating the three-year condition.

The bench concluded that the previous experiment of inducting fresh graduates directly into judicial service was “counter-productive.”

Apart from eligibility for fresh recruits, the Supreme Court also issued directions regarding the promotion quota through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), but details on this aspect are awaited.

The court reiterated its earlier observation from the 1993 All India Judges Association judgment: “To enter the Judicial Service, an applicant must be an Advocate of at least three years’ standing.”/

UNI/SNG ARN PRS